Congress didn't include timetable for troop withdrawal

2007-05-30 07:39:29

#1

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7204|Argentina

Last week, the US Congress has passed an Iraq war funding bill and it does not include the timetable for troop withdrawal sought by the Democrats.
And the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows a record 76% of Americans think the war in Iraq is going badly and that six out of 10 believe going to war was a mistake.

Did the Dems turn their back on voters?

2007-05-30 07:45:25

#2

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7002

I don't think they did. They made two very concerted efforts to implement the majority will of the American people. The problem is one man with a veto stood in their way and stated that he would continue to stand in the way of the majority will of the American people no matter what. So what were the Dems gonna do, allow the soldiers in Iraq rot? They were forced into a corner.

2007-05-30 07:56:37

#3

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7204|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think they did. They made two very concerted efforts to implement the majority will of the American people. The problem is one man with a veto stood in their way and stated that he would continue to stand in the way of the majority will of the American people no matter what. So what were the Dems gonna do, allow the soldiers in Iraq rot? They were forced into a corner.

They need to fund the troops, but they should have voted as they did when GWB vetoed the first bill.

2007-05-30 09:09:28

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6976|Global Command

The dems realized the voters were actually reading the bill and noticed all the pork and wasteful spending they were trying to attach to it.
Shamefull really.

2007-05-30 09:19:05

#5

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7028|SE London

ATG wrote:
The dems realized the voters were actually reading the bill and noticed all the pork and wasteful spending they were trying to attach to it.
Shamefull really.

I wish bills that make so much sense wouldn't always get polluted with all sorts of other crap. It really shows what opportunistic pricks most politicians are.

2007-05-30 18:03:46

#6

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6801

I don't know becuase I didn't vote for them but they turned their backs on their country.

2007-05-30 18:28:17

#7

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|7093|Peoria

yknow, when I'm elected President in 23 years or so, my first official act of office is going to be to dissolve this waste of a government and create a better one that works. And if I can't do that, I create a government that is so caught up in infighting that it will never get anything done at all, and at least we can live without politicians screwing us over along with everyone else.

2007-05-30 18:51:13

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7047|132 and Bush

How do we know there isn't a timetable?
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld … 6467.story

I stand by my September or Bust remark. This denies the GOP any excuse with which to blame them later if/when things finally go irretrievably south.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-05-30 20:40:36

#9

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,073|7218|PNW

The Dems should set a timetable for curing cancer.

2007-05-31 12:47:45

#10

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6833

If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.

2007-05-31 15:55:46

#11

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7002

Commie Killer wrote:
If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.

So why did the majority of the population return the Democrats to power in the House and Senate on a manifesto of withdrawal from Iraq then???

2007-05-31 16:05:49

#12

derstralle: Iron Egg Skill, bitches!; +29|6662

CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is one man with a veto stood in their way and stated that he would continue to stand in the way of the majority will of the American people no matter what.

Actually the president is also "democratically elected"... so de jure he represents the will of the majority either.

2007-05-31 16:19:14

#13

PureFodder: Member; +225|6732

derstralle wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is one man with a veto stood in their way and stated that he would continue to stand in the way of the majority will of the American people no matter what.
Actually the president is also "democratically elected"... so de jure he represents the will of the majority either.

The voting for the house and senate was much more recent though. It would appear unlikely Bush would have stayed in power if it had been a presidential election.

2007-05-31 17:45:09

#14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7047|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.
So why did the majority of the population return the Democrats to power in the House and Senate on a manifesto of withdrawal from Iraq then???

Most Americans aren't aware that Congressional powers come in the form of funding (I guess). Sure they may want us out of Iraq, however not giving the troops what they need when they are engaged in conflict is too much for them to stomach.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-05-31 17:51:45

#15

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7002

Kmarion wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.
So why did the majority of the population return the Democrats to power in the House and Senate on a manifesto of withdrawal from Iraq then???
Most Americans aren't aware that Congressional powers come in the form of funding (I guess). Sure they may want us out of Iraq, however not giving the troops what they need when they are engaged in conflict is too much for them to stomach.

Hence why I state that the Dems didn't turn their back on the voters - they were forced into a corner.

2007-05-31 18:27:21

#16

Reciprocity: Member; +721|7027|the dank(super) side of Oregon

who cares anymore? It's George Jr. mess, he can clean it up. And from what everyone on this forum says, the soldiers like being in Iraq, they like fighting. If they like it, they should stay.

2007-05-31 18:28:07

#17

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6989|Texas - Bigger than France

It's a compromise.

2007-05-31 18:35:50

#18

xma5k1: Member; +2|6669

Commie Killer wrote:
If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.

The problem is that we may be having this same discussion 5 years from now.

2007-05-31 19:03:51

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7047|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
If they had set a time table and forced it through, I think it would of made them lose support. I dont think the majority of the population wants to just drop everything and run.
So why did the majority of the population return the Democrats to power in the House and Senate on a manifesto of withdrawal from Iraq then???

I was elaborating.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

Yes, they should set a timetable for troops withdrawal	46%	46% - 20
No, they did the right thing	53%	53% - 23
Total: 43

BF2S Forums Congress didn't include timetable for troop withdrawal

Poll

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

derstralle wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Board footer